Case law

Fraternal Order of Police, DC v. Rubin

26 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 1998

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and all claims against the defendants in their individual capacities must be dismissed. 8 IV.

AGROCOMPLECT, AD v. Republic of Iraq

524 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2007

on certain pre-established terms, including discounts and structured payment schedules.” … suspend immunity).”

Williams v. Johnson

597 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 2009

A legislature’s efforts to acquire information during formal committee investigations or through the issuance of subpoenas thus clearly constitute “legislative acts” covered by the Speech or Debate Clause. 421 U.S. at 504 … First, Plaintiff argues that the Court should find that the District’s Speech or Debate statute provides only qualified, not absolute, immunity, and that the Court should therefore balance Plaintiffs need for the evidence

Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran

999 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 1999

The provision does not qualify or in any way limit its application only to non-heads of state. … Clearly, the Defendants in this case are able to respond in damages to an award in a very significant amount. Dr.

Al-Wrafie v. Obama

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 24, 2011

He argues that his detention is unlawful if he qualifies as non-detainable medical personnel under Article 24 or Army Regulation 190-8. … The Convention requires proper identification precisely because Article 24 affords total immunity to qualifYing personnel.

Ansary v. Central Bank of Curacao and Sint Maarten

District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 2024

Plaintiff concedes that Defendant qualifies as a “foreign state” entitled to foreign sovereign immunity. Am. … Plaintiff argues—for the first time, in her opposition—that “Central Bank’s actions qualify under all three waiver examples.” Opp’n at 26.

Doe v. District of Columbia

231 F.R.D. 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2005

“Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it requires plaintiff to form medical conclusions which he is not qualified to render. … Plaintiff does not deny this, clearly stating that he knows his answers may need supplementation.

Pryor-El v. Kelly

892 F. Supp. 261 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 1995

The Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. To the extent that Plaintiff is suing the Defendants in their individual capacities, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects them from suit. As stated in Harlow v. … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

Chiriboga v. International Bank for Reconstruction & Development

616 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 1985

not be used to establish diversity jurisdiction. … That definition clearly covers the Chiribogas and Ms. Ruiz. It is apparent, therefore, that under Mendaro the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Bank has waived immunity for the claims. C.

Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2010

Therefore, this action qualifies as a related action under § 1083(c)(3). … To establish jurisdiction under the terrorism exception to the FSIA, the plaintiffs “need not establish that the material support or resources provided by [Syria] for terrorist acts contributed directly” to the hostage-taking

Wiggins v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2026

Officers, however, are immune from suit if they show that their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … To determine whether this qualified immunity applies, the Court asks whether the facts alleged “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and “whether the right at issue was clearly established at the

Breen v. Peters

474 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 2007

Sovereign immunity from disparate impact cases Defendants assert that they are immune from plaintiffs’ age discrimination claim based on a theory of disparate impact. … The statutory text does not limit or qualify the type of age discrimination that Congress prohibited for federal employers, or limit the theory or proof upon which a plaintiff may base a claim that a federal employer violated

Rendall-Speranza v. Nassim

932 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 1996

Thus, the first two requirements of Rule 15(c)(3) clearly are satisfied. … The IFC argues that, even if the FSIA applies, the actions complained of here fall within the “discretionary function” exemption to the respondeat superior liability established by the FSIA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(5).

Tinius v. Choi

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2022

Determining whether an official is afforded qualified immunity is a two-step inquiry. … And even if there is a constitutional intrusion, officers may still be entitled to qualified immunity under the same standard outlined above.

United States v. Oruche

257 F. Supp. 2d 230 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 2003

The Debriefing Letter in this case clearly gave the defendant use immunity for any statements made during his debriefing with the government, providing that “except for [what was set forth in] paragraphs two and three below … of immunity is only qualified by the subsequent two paragraphs.

Libyan American Oil Co. v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahirya

482 F. Supp. 1175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 1980

As the Court noted in Hunt , We conclude that the political act complained of here was clearly within the act of state doctrine and that since the disputed pleadings inevitably call for a judgment on the sovereign acts of … The nationalization provisions of Libyan law established means for LIAMCO to recover its investment.

Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan

172 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 4, 2001

1)” and that “the planning, establishment and operation of a network of ‘comfort houses’ is a commercial activity that is not subject to sovereign immunity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(2).” … ); Maritime Int’l Nominees Establishment v.

United Nuclear Corp. v. Clark

584 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 1984

In the first place, as noted above, it is clearly established that the Indian tribes are not bound by the proscriptions of the Fifth Amendment. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, supra, 436 U.S. at 56 , 98 S.Ct. at 1675 . … In such nations as the Soviet Union the political authorities are clearly supreme, and even in Great Britain Parliament retains the ultimate authority to overrule the courts.

Slack v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2019

By contrast, consider the CRREA, which clearly states that “recipients of Federal financial assistance” “shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1). … Mewborn enjoys immunity from Ms. Slack’s defamation claim. In the alternative, Ms. Mewborn’s statement is also protected by the qualified privilege of consent.

Gasplus, L.L.C. v. United States Department of Interior

466 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 8, 2006

Baracker) are subject to dismissal because they are barred by absolute and/or qualified immunity. Def.’s Mem. at 13-19. … In order to establish absolute immunity on that theory, the proceedings in question must meet the criteria set forth in Butz v.